Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81) violate portions of federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Texas Constitution and, as such, are invalid and illegal in this state.

It also, like Virginia’s law, requires full noncompliance with the federal act:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81). Any act to enforce or attempt to enforce those laws is in violation of this subchapter.

But, the Texas legislation takes it a step further, codifying into State law criminal penalties for violation of the act by even federal agents.

Of course, in the 1830s, the issue was tariffs which the North saw as beneficial to industry, and the South saw as harming the slave cotton economy. What we have today is a brazenly unconstitutional expansion of the Federal government’s powers to seize and hold American citizens.

The tensions between North and South ended in the Civil War. Where will the tensions between Washington and the individual take us?

Click here to view the 6 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

6 Comments, 6 Threads

I’ve been anticipating/dreading this for the last couple of years. Especially when the states announced that they weren’t going to comply with the ObamaCare mandates. That has states’-rights issues written all over it.

G-d only knows where the courts will stand on this. Well, actually, I think we all know the likelihood. Most likely, these “complaints” will be tossed by the lower courts, and by the time they get to SCOTUS, it’ll be so packed with Leftists that we’re gonna see the final trashing of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

After that? There aren’t many scenarios that present themselves as positive.

That is, I disagree that it’s an “expansion of the Federal government’s powers” (or that it’s “brazenly unconstitutional”).

I recall reading the provisions of those sections of the NDAA when the first tempest-in-a-teapot about it occurred, and I still don’t see how anyone gets that idea from what it actually said as passed.

The powers involved are ones the Federal Government has long had (indeed, the language in the NDAA was drafted, IIRC, in response to Hamdan and the like, to codify the Supreme Court’s decisions into statutory practice), and are not exactly repugnant to the Constitution.

(See Lawfare for some explanations of ambiguity, arguably [and most convincingly] addressed in the final version to make it quite clear that the “scary bits” of 1021 don’t apply to Citizens, Resident Aliens, or to anyone captured in the US.

Detention of those three sets of people is entirely unchanged by the NDAA, in its explicit language.

Likewise, 1022 is a non-issue, comporting both with old practice and the Laws of War. “Mandatory detention” wasn’t ever “mandatory”.)

(Oh, if it did do those things that were widely alleged ["the government can arrest anyone, say "terrorism!!!" and legally keep you forevers!!!"], it would be shameful and worth opposing, even in such a futile fashion.

“Where will the tensions between Washington and the individual take us?”

Easy answer; just think about which states contain almost all of our ICBM complexes. Hint; they were all painted red last week. When the day comes (and I think it is now a question of “when”, not “if”) all the “controlling legal authority” in DC will not make a bit of difference